Posts
Americans love being a witness to history. We may have felt that gratification when
Hank Aaron hit home run number 715, beating Babe Ruth's all-time record. Or maybe we saw the "Miracle on Ice" when the USA Men's Hockey Team defeated Russia at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York. Perhaps we saw the AIDS Memorial Quilt, the largest in the world, weighing in at 54 tons.
We like seeing records broken, but even more than that, we like to be a witness to "firsts" in history.
Barack Hussein Obama, (aka Barry Soetoro) is our first mixed-race president but identifies himself as being black. He wrote about his sense of identifying with his communist, Muslim father, and not so much with his white, communist mother. Mr. Obama also describes himself as the most transparent president in the entire history of the United States (where he may, or may not have been born).
Just kidding. He was probably born here but after that, we know very little about him since he paid over $1.4 million to top lawyers to seal his school records and just about everything else that would define who he is. We just need to trust him.
So "first black president" is covered, so what should the next category be that can be a first? The first gay president?
I'm pretty sure that's already been taken in what I would refer to as a "Double-header of a presidential first." But I could be wrong.
What about the first woman president? Yeah, that's the ticket the liberals can sink their fangs into.
Hillary Clinton can be our first female president if she can keep herself from going to prison for the emails she was mandated to turn in at the end of her term as secretary of state.
Simply using a private, non-government email server exclusively for government business is against the law, but even if that weren't the case, what Hillary might be hiding in those emails might get her into deeper trouble, especially her dealings with foreign Islamic theocracies that have given money to her "charity" organization. If any of that money has gone toward her campaign funding, it's against the law. Think of the influence Saudi Arabia or any other donating country would have over her policies.
Yes, Americans like to be part of "firsts," but a vote for Hillary Clinton, based on what we know about her and her accomplishments (she flew a lot of miles, drank a lot of tea and wasted a lot of our tax money) can only be viewed as the (excuse the bluntness) "Vagina Vote." There is no other reason to vote for this woman because she has accomplished nothing both as a New York State Senator and as Secretary of State. You are voting for her chromosomes, not her abilities.
But there will be enough people, men and women alike, who will simply want Hillary to become the first female president of the United States because then they can say they voted for that historical first in American history.
Voting for someone just to make yourself feel important is wreckless. Voting for someone who is as trustworthy as a bottle of blue milk, is just plain stupid.
Tweet
We like seeing records broken, but even more than that, we like to be a witness to "firsts" in history.
Barack Hussein Obama, (aka Barry Soetoro) is our first mixed-race president but identifies himself as being black. He wrote about his sense of identifying with his communist, Muslim father, and not so much with his white, communist mother. Mr. Obama also describes himself as the most transparent president in the entire history of the United States (where he may, or may not have been born).
Just kidding. He was probably born here but after that, we know very little about him since he paid over $1.4 million to top lawyers to seal his school records and just about everything else that would define who he is. We just need to trust him.
So "first black president" is covered, so what should the next category be that can be a first? The first gay president?
I'm pretty sure that's already been taken in what I would refer to as a "Double-header of a presidential first." But I could be wrong.
What about the first woman president? Yeah, that's the ticket the liberals can sink their fangs into.
Hillary Clinton can be our first female president if she can keep herself from going to prison for the emails she was mandated to turn in at the end of her term as secretary of state.
Simply using a private, non-government email server exclusively for government business is against the law, but even if that weren't the case, what Hillary might be hiding in those emails might get her into deeper trouble, especially her dealings with foreign Islamic theocracies that have given money to her "charity" organization. If any of that money has gone toward her campaign funding, it's against the law. Think of the influence Saudi Arabia or any other donating country would have over her policies.
Yes, Americans like to be part of "firsts," but a vote for Hillary Clinton, based on what we know about her and her accomplishments (she flew a lot of miles, drank a lot of tea and wasted a lot of our tax money) can only be viewed as the (excuse the bluntness) "Vagina Vote." There is no other reason to vote for this woman because she has accomplished nothing both as a New York State Senator and as Secretary of State. You are voting for her chromosomes, not her abilities.
But there will be enough people, men and women alike, who will simply want Hillary to become the first female president of the United States because then they can say they voted for that historical first in American history.
Voting for someone just to make yourself feel important is wreckless. Voting for someone who is as trustworthy as a bottle of blue milk, is just plain stupid.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment